31 Comments

1. Lapsed Randian:

The Germans call this Torschlusspanik, translated roughly as “door shutting panic.” It can’t be a tactic because it is just stupid to be a tactic.

Sep 24, 2004 - 8:28 am 2. Warthog:

Just caught the back end of Kerry’s WOT speech. Two things jumped out. One must be a logic test:

A. Al Qaeda is the enemy

B. Al Qaeda is a global threat

C. We will go fight Al Qaeda where they are

D. Al Qaeda is in Iraq

E. Iraq is a diversion and we must reinforce Afghanistan.

The other, which Kerry saved for last, is that the USA can only win the WOT by not isolating itself from the world, and must “share” in the world economy. Meaning? Buy into Kyoto and the International Criminal Court. UN approval required on interventions.

Kerry wants us to trade liberty and sovereignty for the security that will be provided by Kofi Annan and Jaques Chirac.

Sep 24, 2004 - 8:48 am 3. Tom Grey:

Wow, I wish it was possible to find out how many days, exactly.

But in the meantime, in Allawi vs Kerry on Iraq, I’ll score it 365 vs 0.

Is this cricket?

What the heck IS a sticky wicket — better ask Norm.

Sep 24, 2004 - 8:48 am 4. Rick Ballard:

Lapsed Randian,

It’s a deliberate strategy based upon the concept that if you’re holding a 3 of hearts, a 5 of hearts and a 7 of hearts in your hand and all you have left to bet is a dollar you might as well hope to draw a 4 and 6. After all, it’s just a dollar.

Of course, the 4 is continued worsening of the situation in Iraq with the additional deaths of Iraqis and Americans that go with it. And your willingness to bet increases the likelihood that the situation will worsen. The six, instead, is an almost sure draw, a terrorist strike here. And the six of hearts is a terrorist strike that will kill a lot more American than the WTC strike. But what the heck, it’s only a dollar.

If fraud through forgery is OK, why not sedition? It’s not like Kerry hasn’t already given treason a whirl.

Sep 24, 2004 - 8:48 am 5. Lapsed Randian:

At what point does it become time for a Joe Lieberman type to Sister Soulja his flowery spandex covered ass?

Sep 24, 2004 - 8:52 am 6. Jamie Irons:

Roger,

Though your attempt to explain this behavior on the part of the Dems is intelligent and plausible, I feel about it at this point pretty much as I do about trying to understand the “root causes” of why “they” “hate us.”

I don’t give a flying f***!

The thing that concerns me now, however, is that even after a resounding Kerry loss (my bet for what happens) this wing of my party is not going to give it up.

Victor Davis Hanson has a good NRO piece this morning on what is happening to our (the 60s) generation; journalists are his vehicle for the overall metaphor.

Our presumption of moral superiority makes us, in a dreadful and distressing way, the natural allies of the Islamofascist psychpaths.

Jamie Irons

Sep 24, 2004 - 8:56 am 7. Jamie Irons:

Lapsed Randian

At what point does it become time for a Joe Lieberman type to Sister Soulja his flowery spandex covered ass?

That is superb!

Jmaie Irons

Sep 24, 2004 - 8:59 am 8. Warthog:

Since we’re doing comparisons this photo collection of Bush v. Kerry is worth a chuckle or two.

Right Stuff-Wrong Stuff

Sep 24, 2004 - 9:00 am 9. chuck:

The Dem strategy is issues based.

The economy: not bad enough to help them.

The TANG: shot down by forged memos.

Iraq: Shot down by the appealing Allawi.

What Ideals does Kerry embody? Who knows. I tell you, this Democratic campaign will be a famous debacle.

As to Lockharts comments, I am split as to whether it is a tactic, or something he believes. I tend toward the latter, as these balding flower children are reverting to the childish 60’s. It’s the primal scream. At least these poor souls will feel good as the river of history sweeps them over the falls.

Sep 24, 2004 - 9:20 am 10. mongai:

Lapsed Randian

I sent Lieberman an e-mail yesterday asking him the same thing. Are you going to stand up for the Democratic party and “sister soulja” Kerry’s ass?

(I second Jaime, a superb turn of phrase, well above my creative abilities, thus my actual e-mail was a bit dull in comparison.) Anyway, you can ask Lieberman the same question here:

Ask Joe Lieberman the question: For the good of the Party when are you gonna sister soulja Kerry’s derriere?

My first attempted at making a link. I hope it works.

Sep 24, 2004 - 9:38 am 11. mongai:

The link worked! My grammar didn’t. “Attempted.” Apologies.

Sep 24, 2004 - 9:43 am 12. mongai:

Also, sorry Jamie for mispelling your name. I am going to bed now, reading and using the English language being too great a task at the moment.

Sep 24, 2004 - 9:58 am 13. Jamie Irons:

mongai

No apology necessary.

Your command of English is magnificent!

Jamie Irons

Sep 24, 2004 - 10:28 am 14. thibaud:

There’s a better Hail Mary pass available to Kerry, tho I doubt he’ll go for it: turn hard right on the war and attack Bush for not ratcheting up the effort to crush the insurgents.

This is probably what we should be doing in any case, but it also has, for Kerry, great political advantages with little downside.

For starters, as Dick Morris points out there’s no way Kerry can appeal to both the Deanies (maybe 50% of Dems) and the hawks (maybe 25%) in his party. However, the risk is much greater that a significant number of hawks will vote for Bush than that an equal or greater number of Deanies will vote for Nader or stay home. The hawks are by and large single issue voters now; the Deaniacs are not.

So best to win over the hawks with an escalation platform– take Fallujah, bring the war to a conclusion, get the elections going ASAP–which could be coupled with a plan for “Iraqization” of the war, to appeal to the Deanies).

Hail Mary, sure, but a lot more effective and morally defensible than flinging despicable slanders at Australia or floating vile rumors about a draft when it’s your own party that’s pushing for one.

If you’re headed for a fall, at least preserve your honor while you go down.

Sep 24, 2004 - 11:59 am 15. dougf:

If you’re headed for a fall, at least preserve your honor while you go down.– thibaud

This would imply that one had a fair degree of honor before the start of the collapse.I fear that in Kerry’s case,that assumption might be somewhat questionable.I can’t think of 1 good thing to say for the actions taken by that man and his sleazy campaign over that last 24 hours.Even if you wanted to ‘correct’ the image presented by the Iraqi PM,a modicum of discretion might be in order given the noticable lack of alternatives in the current structure in Iraq.Who exactly is Kerry hoping wins this thing?

Sep 24, 2004 - 12:55 pm 16. Dee Bates:

He knows what he is doing. Like Jimmy Carter, he’s on the other side.

I wonder who among the worlds leaders will be left to chat with after Mr. Kerry has insulted every one of our allies. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran . . . , no, Iran has already told him to go take a flying f*** at the moon. Chirac has already told him no. Germany might help since they seem to have the same disease as Kerry. Ahhhh, Putin. Putin is just sleazy enough to appeal to Kerry. (Though, to be fair, we’ll probably end up allied with Russia. Sleeziness has never stopped us from arming our next enemy.) And China! We need China as go-betweens to suck up to the North Koreans (and he already has buddies in China). I’m sure China will help us if we kiss-off Taiwan. And let’s not forget his good friends, the Vietnamese.

I apologize for the poor attempt at humor. I’m so angry . . . .

Whoever above called this sedition is correct.

Sep 24, 2004 - 1:28 pm 17. Terrye:

mongai:

Thank you and I sent the post to Lieberman.

Dee:

I doubt Kerry will be cuddling the Russians, he even managed to insult them in his speech today.

The man is a menace.

Sep 24, 2004 - 1:43 pm 18. Sandy P:

Via Bros. Judd:

OR WE THOUGHT WE KNEW:

Kerry out attack (John McCaslin, 9/24/04, Washington Times)

During a 1997 debate on CNN’s “Crossfire,” Sen. John Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq.

So reveals Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, who appeared with Mr. Kerry on the program.

Mr. King says the U.N. Security Council had just adopted a resolution against Iraq that was watered down at the behest of the French and the Russians. Yet the candidate who now criticizes President Bush for ignoring French and Russian objections to the Iraq war blasted the two countries, claiming that they were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad.

“We know we can’t count on the French. We know we can’t count on the Russians,” said Mr. Kerry. “We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest.”

Sep 24, 2004 - 2:12 pm 19. Sandy P:

Via Croooow Blog:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush this week reached a symbolic milestone, overtaking Democratic challenger John Kerry in New Hampshire and Iowa to claim more than 300 electoral votes in CNN’s weekly Electoral College scorecard.

If the election were held today, Bush would receive 301 electoral votes to Kerry’s 237, according to a CNN survey based on state polling as well as interviews with campaign aides and independent analysts. A candidate wins the election with 270 electoral votes, regardless of the popular vote.

—

Hang on to it, W.

Sep 24, 2004 - 2:31 pm 20. Gary Farber:

I’d like to try to step back from the partisan issues of the day for a moment, and ask you if you would be so kind, Roger, as to help me try to understand the general sylogism you are presenting here. Let me know, if you will, if there’s anything I’m misunderstanding; I misunderstand many things, and I suspect I am doing so here.

The Kerry campaign, and many supporters,are acting “bizarre[ly]” in “dissing an ally during war.” Such behavior is “appalling” and “disgraceful.”

Do I have anything wrong so far?

Kerry and supporters have variously questioned Allawi’s credibily and honesty and impugned it. They have accused him of acting in a partisan fashion. They have critized him.

That is what is disgraceful and appalling. Such behavior in regard to a head of government in “alliance” with the U.S. government is disgraceful and appalling. It “undermines” our alliance.

How have you applied this general sylogism previously? Is it appalling and disgraceful to have spoken in such a way of our brave and valiant ally Ngo Dinh Diem? Nguyen Khanh? Doung Van Minh? Nguyen Cao Ky?

How about General de Gaulle? Francois Mitterrand? King Faisal? General Pinochet? Fulgencio Batista? Chiange Kai-shek? Ferdinand Marcos? Anastasio Somoza? Mohammed Reza Pahlevi? Park Chung Hee? General Suharto? Manuel Noriega? General Mussaraf?

Well, you get the idea. This is not an attempt to play “gotcha.” I’m genuinely trying to figure out what logical line you are drawing. Criticizing any or all of these leaders we were at one time allied with (argue about Mitterand not having been an ally in the Gulf War I if you like, but to be consistent, presumably we should tear up our treaties with France if we’re truly no longer allies) would have been wrong? Right? Some of them?

These cases differ from Mr. Allawi in what way?

I’m trying to understand when or how it’s “appalling” and “disgraceful” to criticize, question, or even rhetorically attack, an ally?

Sep 24, 2004 - 3:40 pm 21. Gary Farber:

I’d like to try to step back from the partisan issues of the day for a moment, and ask you if you would be so kind, Roger, as to help me try to understand the general syllogism you are presenting here. Let me know, if you will, if there’s anything I’m misunderstanding; I misunderstand many things, and I suspect I am doing so here.

The Kerry campaign, and many supporters,are acting “bizarre[ly]” in “dissing an ally during war.” Such behavior is “appalling” and “disgraceful.”

Do I have anything wrong so far?

Kerry and supporters have variously questioned Allawi’s credibily and honesty and impugned it. They have accused him of acting in a partisan fashion. They have critized him.

That is what is disgraceful and appalling. Such behavior in regard to a head of government in “alliance” with the U.S. government is disgraceful and appalling. It “undermines” our alliance.

How have you applied this general sylogism previously? Is it appalling and disgraceful to have spoken in such a way of our brave and valiant ally Ngo Dinh Diem? Nguyen Khanh? Doung Van Minh? Nguyen Cao Ky?

How about General de Gaulle? Francois Mitterrand? King Faisal? General Pinochet? Fulgencio Batista? Chiange Kai-shek? Ferdinand Marcos? Anastasio Somoza? Mohammed Reza Pahlevi? Park Chung Hee? General Suharto? Manuel Noriega? General Mussaraf?

Well, you get the idea. This is not an attempt to play “gotcha.” I’m genuinely trying to figure out what logical line you are drawing. Criticizing any or all of these leaders we were at one time allied with (argue about Mitterand not having been an ally in the Gulf War I if you like, but to be consistent, presumably we should tear up our treaties with France if we’re truly no longer allies) would have been wrong? Right? Some of them?

These cases differ from Mr. Allawi in what way?

I’m trying to understand when or how it’s “appalling” and “disgraceful” to criticize, question, or even rhetorically attack, an ally?

Sep 24, 2004 - 3:42 pm 22. dougf:

‘I’m trying to understand when or how it’s “appalling” and “disgraceful” to criticize, question, or even rhetorically attack, an ally?’–GF

Trying to explain would be one worthwhile definition of futility.Either you know why his actions are beneath contempt or you do not.Either you understand why what he is doing is not in the interests of our civilization or you do not.Clearly you do not.I have passed beyond the phase when I believed that from reasoned discourse,truth will out.Much more likely is just a never ending, increasingly strident,ever more ‘picky’,journey into sophistry.

I decline,sir.You waste my time.

Sep 24, 2004 - 4:46 pm 23. RogerA:

Gary: I cant answer for Roger, but to me the tone of Kerry’s (and more significantly his campaign staff’s) remarks is a bit off the mark given where the situation is in Iraq and with elections coming up. (Iraqi elections). Kerry is certainly within his rights to criticize; but I would have thought it a bit more diplomatic had he met with the PM privately to find out why the PM took the position he did with respect to the situation in Iraq. Then I could have issues a more generic statement following that meeting. Kerry doesnt demonstrate a great deal of savoire faire in a diplomatic sense–in fact, his behavior, I felt, was downright tacky. But you and I are certainly free to disagree.

Sep 24, 2004 - 4:57 pm 24. Charlie (Colorado):

That’s okay, Doug, I’ll give it a shot.

Gary, the essential distinction between this and, say, criticizing Manuel Noriega is this: we are currently engaged in active hostilities with Allawi’s government as allies, and against the forces of fascist reaction that are currently using terrorism to kill and intimidate the citizens of Iraq, and to kill US soldiers and marines.

By doing so, Kerry supports the enemy’s morale by suggesting they can win if they just hold on until the election, and likely indirectly supports the enemy’s logistics by making it more likely that other states will think they can win, and that logistic support won’t be wasted.

Because this is the likely outcome, Kerry’s actions are supporting fascism and terrorism against a friendly government attempting to become a fully democratic modern state and also supporting the enemy forces that are, today, killing and injuring American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

This is distinguished from most of the others you mention in that while they were allies, we were not engaged in active hostilities in alliance with them. (DeGaulle, in particular, was an annoyance, not a significant military commander or effective head of state during WWII.) Criticism then, such as calling them American “puppets”, might well have been ill-advised, but they would not have put US personnel at risk.

This is why his speeches are despicable.

You might then wonder why similar actions and speeches against Nguyen weren’t equally despicable?

And the answer, of course, is that they were.

Sep 24, 2004 - 5:03 pm 25. Terrye:

Gary:

So far Kerry’s sister who is acting as his campaign representative in Australia has told the Australian people that the Aussies made a mistake supporting America. They have an election on October 9. If John Howard’s challenger wins he will pull the troops from Iraq. So we have Kerry complaining about a lack of support for our troops in Iraq while a rep of his campaign is trying to damage an ally and get more troops pulled from a coalition that Kerry called the bribed and coerced, fruadulent, and in general treats like crap. What is next? Is he going to make Polish jokes? Call Tony Blair a poodle?

Kerry’s remarks about Allawi will be played all over Iraq, Zarqawi will love it. Allawi’s critics will eat it up. It could help make a bad situation worse than it already is and that in turn means more dead people. And what if Kerry wins? He has managed to alienate and insult America’s best hope in Iraq.

DeGualle hated Americans and made no secret of it, but this is not about the usual French perfidy or Viet Nam. This is about putting partisan politics ahead of everything, including your country and the men and women who serve it.

It just shows that Kerry has bad judgment. The Kerry campaign can say Allawi is too close to Bush, but whose fault is that?

Sep 24, 2004 - 5:06 pm 26. devildog:

Roger, I agree completely about the “Hail Mary.” I wrote this post on 9/20, just after Kerry’s NYU speech and before Allawi’s arrival.

John Kerry’s Hail Mary

John Kerry’s speech today was the first in recent memory to have a clear message. I didn’t agree with the message, but it was on message for a change. For the last few weeks he’s been poking around with the ridiculous slogan-a-day gimmick, paying homage to the latest focus group. He’s also stopped the “W is for Wrong” nonsense and the tiresome efforts to work the cost of Iraq into some sort of domestic budget calculus.

What was interesting about the speech wasn’t the content, as usual, but what it told us about Kerry’s current state of mind. The speech signaled two things: 1. Kerry understands his only chance to be elected is if Iraq disintegrates to the point voters turn on President Bush (and he’s not shy about helping it along), and 2. Kerry will say anything to be elected.

Many will quickly, cynically, note the conventional wisdom that politicians will say anything to be elected, but I disagree. It’s hard to imagine Joe Liberman, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden or Bill Clinton, to name just a few, making such reckless statements with troops at war. I think these men would be equally disinclined to launch such an assault on the president on the eve of Prime Minister Allawi’s visit.

So in the absence of any original ideas or positions, John Kerry’s plan is to simply bet against the U.S. in order to be president. In the Marine Corps we learned fourteen traits of leadership — integrity, knowledge, courage, decisiveness, dependability, initiative, tact, justice, enthusiasm, bearing, endurance, unselfishness, loyalty and judgment. When you compare the two candidates on this basis, there’s no comparison.

Sep 24, 2004 - 6:05 pm 27. Pat Curley:

The Kerry campaign is now claiming that Brinkley just meant to say the idea that Kerry’s not a hero is the public’s perception, not his own opinion, which is surprising considering what a laughingstock Tour of Duty has become because all of the lies Kerry has told about his life.

Sep 24, 2004 - 6:50 pm 28. Gary Farber:

I thank those who answered my query; I don’t entirely agree, but I have a much better idea of the POV now.

I don’t agree that it was appalling and disgraceful to criticize Diem, to go back to an historical parallel of sorts (I am not pressing a particularly direct comparison to Allawi, whose future behavior remains to be seen, but so far has seemed unobjectionable). Diem and Madame Nhu, however, were corrupt, undemocratic, and perfectly happy to shoot enemies, encourage Buddhist priests to set themselves on fire, and were, moreover greatly unwilling to press the war, being far more interested in spending US aid to solidify their rule over their rivals.

It was for these reasons that the Kennedy administration concluded that the war could not be won with Diem in power, and wisely or not — they certainly didn’t foresee the spiral downwards that followed, overall, over the longterm after that — they authorized instigating a coup that, while all evidence suggests they were genuinely (naively) shocked to have it result in Diem’s assassination, certainly was intended to, as it successfully did, remove Diem from power.

That’s a lot more serious, as an example, than saying “Diem/Allawi’s statements here weren’t accurate, and seem suspiciously partisan.”

I think criticizing Allawi is no more out of bounds than criticizing Kerry or Bush, but I do take the points made. Thanks again.

Sep 24, 2004 - 8:58 pm 29. Dee Bates:

It is 4:30 AM, so I probably shouldn’t be writing these thoughts, but here goes.

Everyone assumes that Kerry is simply clueless and partisan and, therefore, openes his mouth only to issue excrement. I don’t think so. I think he knows what he is doing, and is doing so to cause greater blood-shed — the better to beat up Bush over Iraq.

Kerry is a Transnational Progressive, just like the EU cabal. He is so intelligent, so above the small stuff, a Machiavellian Post-Modernist — so elite — he only deals with the biggest of big pictures. When one is so wrapped up in the intellectual pursuit of the big goal, one cannot be bothered by ethical questions concerning the means of reaching that goal. The end justifies the means, even if that means more deaths at the moment. It is the same principle guiding the jihadists.

And what about the Iraqis? Well, like the Vietnamese, they don’t care how their government is constituted, as long as their “needs” are met. This is true of all the simple masses, you know.

Gary:

I reject your premises. Specifically, placing Mr. Allawi in such company. Why do you assume that he is of the same caliber as the parasites you mentioned?

The fact that we have based our past foreign policy on “pragmatism” and expediency — to the absolute detriment of the country’s security — ought to be a sobering lesson. From what I’ve seen, it’s one we haven’t learned. We always arm, and train, our future enimies.

Sep 25, 2004 - 4:52 am 30. Gary Farber:

“Gary:

I reject your premises. Specifically, placing Mr. Allawi in such company. Why do you assume that he is of the same caliber as the parasites you mentioned?”

What part of “(I am not pressing a particularly direct comparison to Allawi, whose future behavior remains to be seen, but so far has seemed unobjectionable)” was unclear?

Sep 25, 2004 - 11:03 am 31. PeterUK:

There are such things as tact and diplomacy,I leave out statesmanship because someone either has it or they don’t,Kerry doesn’t.

Saying because a mistake was made in the past it is right to repeat that mistake seems illogical.In the case of De Gaulle it lead to decades of emnity,now you can get this in the middle east without even trying,why take a gamble that Allawi will fail.

Further, it is of great interest to your enemies to see how you treat your friends,and in the middle east friendships can change overnight,you can quickly become the common enemy.

Why does Zarqawi slaughter and maim as he does,because he thinks he is on the winning side and Kerry’s words are only giving him aid and comfort.If Kerry is against Allawi,then perhaps Zarqawi thinks he only needs to push a little harder and the US is out of there.

There was a catch phrase in WWII “Loose lips sink ships”, anyone who thinks themselves worthy of the presidency would put the lives of others above his narrow personal interest.

Sep 25, 2004 - 1:27 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: